Hi Chris, I've been following that thread 😊
IMHO it would depend on the nature of extension and seems not something that I would speculate about. Thanks, Ketan -----Original Message----- From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Christian Hopps Sent: 12 March 2020 17:04 To: [email protected] Cc: Chris Bowers <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]>; Bruno Decraene <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [spring] clarification of locator block and locator node in draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]> writes: > [KT] The behaviors currently listed in the draft do not have an argument nor > is the use of B and N required for them. We cannot preclude a future use-case > or extension where such behaviors introduced are also applicable to ISIS. So > IMHO ruling such aspects out might not be the right thing to do from a > protocol extensibility perspective. No opinion here on this sub-sub-TLV; however, it has been stated elsewhere that this document will be re-spun for each new behavior that is to be carried in IS-IS (not my personal preference, fwiw...). Thanks, Chris. [as WG member] _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
